A new, nonelectronic hearing aid was studied in 112 patients with mild sloping sensorineural hearing loss. The device, worn all in the ear and made of clear plastic, produced a mean functional gain of 9.6 dB at 1500 Hz, 12.4 dB at 1750 Hz, and 9.1 dB at 2000 Hz, with lesser gains at adjacent frequencies between 1000 and 2500 Hz. Speech discrimination in quiet and in noise was improved. Patient acceptance of the device (in a group of 884 patients) was 76%. The device appears to be useful in the treatment of mild hearing loss.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
. BergerK: The hearing aid: Its operation and development. Detroit, 1970, National Hearing Aid Society, pp 1–48.
2.
. KoelkebeckMJDetjenCCalvertD: Historic devices for hearing. St. Louis, 1984, Central Institute for the Deaf, pp 1–168.
3.
. PolitzerA: In A textbook of the diseases of the ear and adjacent organs. Philadelphia, 1894, Lea Brothers and Co, pp 710–712.
4.
. GoodeR: Unpublished data.
5.
. DavisHSilvermanSR: Hearing and deafness. New York, 1970, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, p 283.
6.
. MaurerJFRuppRR: Hearing and aging: Tactics for intervention. New York, 1979, Grune and Stratton, Inc, pp 17–25.
7.
. GoodeR: The earesonator: A new answer for mild hearing loss. Paper presented at the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (Scientific Exhibit), New Orleans, La. Oct. 17–21, 1982.
8.
. ShawEAG: The external ear. KeidelWDNeffWD, editors: Handbook of sensory physiology. Berlin, 1974, Springer-Verlag, pp 455–490.
9.
. FrenchNRSteinbergJC: Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am19: 90–119, 1947.
10.
. ZwislockiJJ: An acoustic coupler for earphone calibration. Laboratory of Sensory Communication. Syracuse, 1971, Syracuse University Special Report LSC-S-7.
11.
. ZwislockiJJ: An ear-like coupler for earphone calibration. Laboratory of Sensory Communication. Syracuse, 1971, Syracuse University Special Report LSC-S-9.
. HarfordER: A new clinical technique for verification of hearing aid response. Arch Otolaryngol107: 461–468, 1981.
14.
. Gordon-SalantS: Effects of reducing low-frequency amplification on consonant perception in quiet and noise. J Speech Hear Res27: 483–493, 1984.
15.
. PrevesDOrtonJ: Use of acoustic impedance measures in hearing aid fitting. Hearing Instruments29: 22–24, 1978.
16.
. LibbyER: State-of-the-art of hearing aid selection procedures. Hearing Instruments36: 30–62, 1985.
17.
. HarrisJD: Pure-tone acuity and the intelligibility of everyday speech. J Acoust Soc Am37: 824–830, 1965.
18.
. LeijonAEriksson-MangoldMBech-KarlsenA: Preferred hearing aid gain and bass-cut in relation to prescriptive fitting. Scand Audiol13: 157–161, 1984.
19.
. MuellerHGGrimesAM: Speech audiometry for hearing aid selection. Semin Hearing4: 255–272, 1983.
20.
. OstergardCA: Factors influencing the validity and reliability of speech audiometry. Semin Hearing4: 221–240, 1983.
21.
. ThorntonARaffinM: Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res21: 507–518, 1978.
22.
. RaffinMJThorntonAR: Confidence levels for differences between speech discrimination scores: A research note. J Speech Hear Disord23: 5–18, 1980.
23.
. StudebakerG: Hearing Aid selection: An overview. StudebakerGBessF, editors: The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report. Upper Darby, Penn., 1983, Monographs in contemporary audiology.
24.
. SchwartzDMSurrRKMontgomeryAProsekRWaldenB: Performance of high frequency impaired listeners with conventional and extended high frequency amplification. Audiology18: 157–174, 1979.
